Lot of athletes may do it but there is no data saying it works according to these people from Harvard:
https://www.facebook.com/HarvardStemCell
https://twitter.com/harvardstemcell
HOME / HSCI NEWS / ABOUT / REPORTS / STEM CELL LINES / SPRING 2013 (V.8, NO.1) /
Stem cell tourism
False hope for real money
Internet sites for clinics all around the world—including the US, but especially in China, India, the Caribbean, Latin America, and nations of the former Soviet Union—offer stem-cell-based treatments for people suffering from a dizzying array of serious conditions.
Never mind that cancer is the only disease category for which there is published, scientifically valid evidence showing that stem cell therapy may help. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of desperate people are flocking to clinics that charge tens of thousands of dollars for every unproven treatment.
Traveling for therapy, or “stem cell tourism,” was the subject of a panel discussion titled “Stem Cell Therapy and Medical Tourism: Of Promise and Peril?” arranged by HSCI in collaboration with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics.
Brock Reeve, HSCI executive director, introduced the topic by pointing out that there are positive and negative aspects to medical tourism. For example, patients flock from all over the world to the Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dana-Farber Center Institute, and other Boston research hospitals for cutting-edge, scientifically validated treatments for a host of diseases.
But then there is the other kind of medical tourism, and every member of the panel agreed with speaker Timothy A. Caulfield, LL.M, the Canada Research chair in health, law, and policy at the University of Alberta, when he said that the stem cell tourism phenomenon “hurts the legitimacy of the entire field” of stem cell science and medicine.
While adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat a number of malignancies—bone marrow transplants are, in fact, are the only stem cell treatments that are not experimental.
George Daley, MD, PhD, a member of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute’s executive committee and past president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, added that “we are seeing a growing number [of legitimate clinical trials] but all such uses are experimental ... and there is great skepticism as to whether we have” the scientific knowledge and basis even to “predict that these will be effective.” “It may,” he said, “take decades before there is certainty.” “The only stem cell therapies that have been proven safe and effective,” he said, “are those constituting what is known as bone marrow transplantation for treatment of some cancers.”
But the clinics selling stem cell therapy for a sweeping catalog of diseases aren’t offering patients places in clinical trials. They are touting what they claim are established treatments, with proven results. Caulfield said a number of his studies demonstrate that treatments are offered as safe, routine, and effective, but “none of what is being offered matched what the scientific literature said.” He accused the clinics of “financial exploitation” of desperate people, and said those who raise money to finance pilgrimages to them are “raising money to turn over to a fraud.”
I. Glenn Cohen, JD, professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Petrie-Flom Center, suggested that one way to slow stem cell tourism could be to prosecute for child abuse when the treatment involves minors. Cohen said that though he is sympathetic with parents seeking help for their ill children, “this falls under existing child-abuse and neglect statutes.”
Jill Lepore, PhD, chair of Harvard’s History and Literature Program, came at the issues from a very different perspective. “I don’t have patients,” Lepore said, “I have characters.” She said there is a kind of “faith in science that draws” some people to any promise of a cure for disease, no matter how specious. What fuels this false hope, she said, is “one of the most dangerous elements of our culture: that we have forgotten how to die.”

His hamstring still needs treatment? That’s not good. Going to the cocaine capital of the world to get cutting-edge treatment? I think he’s being separated from a lot of his money under questionable circumstances. I wonder what the Jets medical staff thinks of this quackery.

I agree. Also agree with intent of Rooney rule which when taken seriously by a team gets qualified people interview opportunities and increases their chance of hire. This new rule , though, seems to create more problems then it solves and would be difficult to apply fairly. Anthony Lynn, who probably benefited by the Rooney rule doesn’t think this will work. I don’t have any solutions and would like to see some way to increase minority hiring but I don’t like this rule.

An interesting talk, thanks for posting. Here’s an opposing view. Some people feel the science behind his theory is lacking.
Science-Based Medicine
Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine
NextIt’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream
Explore
Menu
Neuroscience/Mental Health
Dr. Amen’s Love Affair with SPECT Scans
Harriet Hall on March 19, 2013
178SHARES
169
9
0
0
0
0
Daniel Amen loves SPECT scans (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography). And well he should. They have brought him fame and fortune. They have rewarded him with a chain of Amen Clinics, a presence on PBS, lucrative speaking engagements, a $4.8 million mansion overlooking the Pacific Ocean, and a line of products including books, videos and diet supplements (“nutraceuticals”). He grossed $20 million last year. Amen is a psychiatrist who charges patients $3,500 to take pretty colored SPECT pictures of their brains as an aid to the diagnosis and treatment of conditions including brain trauma, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), addictions, anxiety, depression, dementia, and obesity. He even does SPECT scans as a part of marriage counseling and for general brain health checkups.
SPECT imaging uses an injected radioisotope to measure blood flow in different areas of the brain. Amen is exposing patients to radiation and charging them big bucks because his personal experience has convinced him SPECT is useful. So far, he has failed to convince the rest of the scientific medical community.
Amen has just published an article in the journal Alternative Therapies entitled “It’s Time to Stop Flying Blind: How Not Looking at the Brain leads to Missed Diagnoses, Failed Treatments, and Dangerous Behaviors.” It amounts to poorly-reasoned apologetics with false analogies, testimonials, and pretty pictures that don’t prove what he thinks they prove.
Previous Criticism
I have written about Dr. Amen before, both on Quackwatch and on Science-Based Medicine. Amen’s attorneys complained that my Quackwatch article was unfair; we responded to the attorneys by asking a series of questions, and I commented on their inadequate response. When you google “Daniel Amen,” “Amen Clinic” or even just “SPECT scans” my articles appear early in the list of hits.
It’s not just me. Amen has a lot of other critics. Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat wrote “Brain Scans as Mind Readers? Don’t Believe the Hype” in Wired Magazine, describing his own evaluation by Dr. Amen. Amen told Carlat his scans showed too little activity, a pattern of angst, and a predisposition to depression (that part was a slam dunk, since in taking a medical history Amen had already elicited the information that Carlat had had a short bout with depression). He recommended a multivitamin, gingko, less snowboarding, and more tennis. An expert at UCLA later reviewed the same scans and explained that the findings are meaningless because they haven’t been validated by controlled studies to determine their diagnostic specificity. Carlat likens Amen’s spiel to the cold readings of palm readers.
The Skeptic’s Dictionary has critiqued Amen’s PBS programs, calling them “infomercials.” The PBS Ombudsman received a flurry of complaints about the use of Amen’s videos for fundraising drives, but weaseled out of taking any action by saying decisions were made by local stations and the programs were not officially endorsed by PBS.
Neurologist Robert Burton wrote an article called “Brain scam” in Salon. The title says it all. Among other things, he is appalled that Amen claims to know how to prevent and treat Alzheimer’s.
In an article titled “Brain scans: not quite ready for prime time” Dr. Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute for Mental Health, characterizes brain imaging as “still primarily a research tool.” He cautions that “entrepreneurial zeal capitalizing on scientific advances needs to be tempered by reality checks.”
In a 2012 article in The Washington Post, Neely Tucker reported:
He includes a number of scathing quotations from those elite.
Amen’s New “Flying Blind” Article
Anecdotes. He starts with an anecdote about his nephew, who had attacked a little girl for no apparent reason. Amen did a SPECT scan and found a large arachnoid cyst; after surgery, the violent behavior stopped. This is a touching story, but anecdotes are not evidence. Cysts and other brain abnormalities are frequent incidental findings on brain imaging and arachnoid cysts are often asymptomatic even when large. Even if the child’s violent behavior was due to the cyst, a SPECT scan was not necessary to find it. An MRI would have found it, with better anatomical detail and no need for radiation exposure.
He asks,
He suggests that if the brains of recent mentally ill mass murderers had been looked at, their crimes might have been prevented. That might be a persuasive argument if “looking at the brain” actually corresponded to understanding what the neurons were doing or had any predictive value. It doesn’t.
He presents more anecdotes: after an addict saw the “toxic pattern” on his scan, he stopped abusing alcohol and cocaine. After a depressed patient’s scan showed a pattern “consistent with brain injury,” further questioning led her to remember a fall from her bike a month before her symptoms began.
Defensiveness. Next he switches into defensive mode, trying to answer some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him.
Scans will not give an accurate psychiatric diagnosis. He admits this is true, but argues that a diagnosis doesn’t tell us if the brain is overactive and needs to be calmed or underactive and needs stimulation. He gives another anecdote of a patient with hallucinations: SPECT scanning showed areas of increased activity, leading him to investigate further and diagnose Lyme disease. He says “In my psychiatric group’s experience, success rates increase when psychiatrists use clinical histories plus scans.” [Emphasis added.] Remember that Mark Crislip has called “in my experience” the three most dangerous words in medicine.
Not enough research has occurred. He admits that more work is needed, but switches into tu quoque mode, saying that only 11% to 14% of the recommendations of other specialties are supported by A-level scientific evidence.
Scans are expensive. He says they cost about the same as MRI scans. But the cost of an MRI varies, and only the highest prices correspond to what Amen routinely charges for SPECT. And MRIs are arguably done for reasons that are better grounded in evidence. No other psychiatrist routinely orders MRIs on every patient. And MRI scans don’t use radiation.
The scans use radiation. He argues that CT scans do too. But CT scans are arguably done for reasons that are better grounded in evidence. They are not done routinely on every patient.
SPECT is not ready for clinical use and should be left in the hands of researchers. He argues that a useful medical procedure should not be withheld from patients just because researchers haven’t chosen to study it, and that there are no financial incentives for such research, since the imaging tools already exist. (I don’t think I need to point out what is wrong with that reasoning.)
Ignoring the real criticisms. He is really responding to a straw man characterization of what his critics have said. He ignores other criticisms like these:
Patients should not be subjected to the radiation and expense of a SPECT scan without credible evidence (from controlled, peer-reviewed studies) that it is likely to help them.
He is relying on experience and anecdote rather than on acceptable scientific evidence.
He has not validated that scans show what he claims they show.
He uses unscientific terminology like “your brain is cool at rest.”
He has not shown that his outcomes are better than those of doctors who do not do SPECT scans.
He has created his own idiosyncratic classifications of illness based on scan results, classifications that go beyond the DSM and that have not been validated elsewhere. For instance, he divides ADHD into classic, inattentive, over-focused, temporal lobe, limbic and “ring of fire,” and obesity into compulsive, impulsive, impulsive convulsive, sad, and anxious.
He prescribes inadequately tested natural remedies, irrational mixtures of nutritional diet supplements, hyperbaric oxygen, and other questionable treatments.
A riff on traumatic brain injuries. He goes on to talk about unrecognized damage from traumatic brain injuries, recommending that SPECT scans be routinely used on military personnel and those at risk of sports injuries. But he has only his own anecdotal impressions that SPECT scans can add anything useful to the usual diagnostic process for TBI, which already includes CT and MRI scans.
Conclusion
Amen fails to make his case that “Not Looking at the Brain leads to Missed Diagnoses, Failed Treatments, and Dangerous Behaviors.” He accuses conventional doctors of “flying blind.” But maybe he is the one flying blind, blinded by delusions born of exalting personal experience above rigorous scientific testing and allowing the lure of celebrity and riches to cloud his judgment. Isn’t it curious that while he claims to be at the cutting edge of scientific medicine, this article was published in an alternative medicine journal?
178SHARES
169
9
0
0
0
0
Posted in: Neuroscience/Mental Health
Tagged in: Amen Clinics, brain scans, Dr. Daniel Amen, neurology, PBS, psychiatric diagnoses, SPECT scans
Posted by Harriet Hall
Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. She received her BA and MD from the University of Washington, did her internship in the Air Force (the second female ever to do so), and was the first female graduate of the Air Force family practice residency at Eglin Air Force Base. During a long career as an Air Force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to DBMS (Director of Base Medical Services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a B-52. She retired with the rank of Colonel. In 2008 she published her memoirs, Women Aren't Supposed to Fly.